Prevalence and distribution of carbapenem-resistant <i>Enterobacterales</i> in companion animals: A nationwide study in the United States using commercial laboratory data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are a concern in both human and animal medicine globally. Despite extensive research in humans, limited data exist on CRE in companion animals, with a lack of nationwide prevalence estimates. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: To assess the occurrence and trends of CRE in cats and dogs across the United States by analyzing 4 years of commercial antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) data. ANIMALS: Between 2019 and 2022, 477 426 ASTs were conducted on Enterobacterales isolates against imipenem. Isolates were derived from 379 598 dogs and 97 828 cats. Animal origin was not disclosed. METHODS: In this retrospective study, antimicrobial susceptibility test data from IDEXX Laboratories were analyzed. Analysis included resistance estimations to imipenem stratified by sampling site, an assessment of resistance patterns over time and location, and the application of space-time cluster analysis to identify potential outbreaks. Antibiograms were produced for carbapenem-resistant isolates. RESULTS: Susceptibility to imipenem was high, at 98.86%. Temporal analysis indicated stability in susceptibility, with an unexplained reduction in susceptible isolates in June 2019. Spatial analysis identified 2 high-risk clusters along the Western Coast (relative risk [RR]: 23.26; P < .001) and in Texas (RR: 10.72; P < .001) in that month. Three other clusters were found, in Missouri (RR: 39.55; P = .038), Florida (RR: 4.53; P < .001), and New York (RR: 9.20; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: CRE are present at a low prevalence in dogs and cats across the United States. Variations in prevalence across patient-level and environmental factors highlight the need for tailored stewardship programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".